The ACES idea: Use a small ACES 34 or large 71 on top of a j130 or even a j120 for BEO instead of building a j 24x build a j234 or 236 or a j 224 or j 226.

Debate: Will it: Be able to do BEO on a shoestring budget?Will it: be flexible in terms of payloads?Will it: have usable applications in the commercial market?If it can work should it be used or should it not be built because it competes to heavily with existing eelvs?Also: Would a j120 with aces 34 allow for any beo exploration? My personal idea: J 130+ ACES 34 scaled up to ACES 71+VASIMIR third stage in future.

Also: It is the postion of the DIRECT to design a system that will not compete with commercial launchers. However, it was noted that perhaps a j120 w/o ACES 34, might be cheaper for boeing to use than delta 4 (most likely to be cheaper the delta 4 heavy). So the second question is:1. If boeing is involved with sdhlv would they consider replacing delta 4 with a j120 IF it was proven to be cheaper? IMO I don't think they would do this even if it WAS cheaper because delta 4 already has a great track record.

Note: I am not in any way part of the DIRECT team nor do I represent their position on any issues.

Sorry for my newbie-ness, but what is ACES? I keep seeing people talking about it but I have no clue what it is. I've been able to figure out almost all of the other acronyms people use very frequently here, but not that one.

Quote from: clongton on 03/20/2010 05:16 PMQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/20/2010 05:08 PMFor Direct 4.0 question for clongton:1. What about using VASIMIR as the eds/ second stage for lunar missions in the future? This way you would not need JUS (assumes a powerful scaled up VASIMIR for IOC no earlier than 2020.)

1. VASIMR is good. I like it. Especially if it can be fitted with a polywell fusion reactor for the power source.

There doesn't seem to be any way around it, you either need to develop ACES-41/71 or JUS/ACES-1xx or a NEP/SEP/NTR TLI stage.

VASIMR is not suitable as a true second stage (burns during ascent), so you would be looking at something more akin to J-130 with VASIMR deployed in orbit, vs J-24x with an upper-stage burn. Even J-130 + ACES has the advantage that ACES can perform a circ burn, so delivers more payload to LEO.

If J-24x can push ~40mT through TLI, I think you'd be hard pushed to make a J-130 that could lift 40mT of payload + VASIMR + Polywell + TLI prop & tank. (This assumes no ACES & no depot).

I'd suspect this would need to be more of a VASIMR tug, although that in turn seems to imply that J-130 would need to lift prop for TLI, LOI, TEI & EOI, as well as the payload. And you still need a chemical EDS for Human flights, to avoid long Van Allen loiters.

With launchers in the Jupiter class, I can't see a justification for nuclear- or solar-powered tugs until you build up to a substantial number of Lunar transits per year.

However, this sort of TLI/LOI stage makes some sense to maximise payloads if constrained to EELV Heavy sized launches.

Idea for VASIMIR: Not to use it as a burns during ascent but to loft it into orbit (perhaps two launch system 1 j 130 launch for orion 1 for very large (nuclear+solar) VASIMIR stage. Then the two dock and leave LEO. But I still think the ACES idea would be cheaper. But what if: You launched an extremely large VASIMIR tug (note this would require true heavy lift possibly a j130 SH or a j140 (no sh)) In one shot and then launched an Argon propellant depot for refuelling. Then, you launch crew, hab, and/or lander on another j130 launch. They then dock with this super large tug which then fires to take the stack to the moon, lets say. After preforming TLI, the tug seperates from orion and cargo and returns to earth, preforming an automated burn to place it back into HEO or GTO. It then refeuls. Rinse, repeat.

Still, for cost savings that would probably be too expensive. So:Stick with ACES 34+j130. My idea for reducing costs. Might sell better with POTUS and Bolden since ACES is commercial, is game changing, and does save costs.

Sorry for my newbie-ness, but what is ACES? I keep seeing people talking about it but I have no clue what it is. I've been able to figure out almost all of the other acronyms people use very frequently here, but not that one.

A.C.E.S.: Advandced Common Evolved Stage. ULA is going to switch from using the DSS (for delta 4) and the Centaur (for atlas 5) to this common stage. This stage will: be designed for propellant transfer from a depot on orbit, will be ultra low boiloff (first time for that, that is game changing tech) will be far more powerful than existing eelv stages, and since both rockets will use it, will be much cheaper than existing eelv stages thus lower delta and atlas costs whilst boosting payload. The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage . That is the idea behind this thread: how to do BEO using a j130 or 120 and shoe string budget (use ACES).

Sorry for my newbie-ness, but what is ACES? I keep seeing people talking about it but I have no clue what it is. I've been able to figure out almost all of the other acronyms people use very frequently here, but not that one.

A.C.E.S.: Advandced Common Evolved Stage. ULA is going to switch from using the DSS (for delta 4) and the Centaur (for atlas 5) to this common stage. This stage will: be designed for propellant transfer from a depot on orbit, will be ultra low boiloff (first time for that, that is game changing tech) will be far more powerful than existing eelv stages, and since both rockets will use it, will be much cheaper than existing eelv stages thus lower delta and atlas costs whilst boosting payload. The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage . That is the idea behind this thread: how to do BEO using a j130 or 120 and shoe string budget (use ACES).

Sorry for my newbie-ness, but what is ACES? I keep seeing people talking about it but I have no clue what it is. I've been able to figure out almost all of the other acronyms people use very frequently here, but not that one.

A.C.E.S.: Advandced Common Evolved Stage. ULA is going to switch from using the DSS (for delta 4) and the Centaur (for atlas 5) to this common stage. This stage will: be designed for propellant transfer from a depot on orbit, will be ultra low boiloff (first time for that, that is game changing tech) will be far more powerful than existing eelv stages, and since both rockets will use it, will be much cheaper than existing eelv stages thus lower delta and atlas costs whilst boosting payload. The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage . That is the idea behind this thread: how to do BEO using a j130 or 120 and shoe string budget (use ACES).

The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage .

Not really viable. ACES has the avionics for the whole vehicle. Jupiter has is own set of avionics. NASA nor the USAF will buy an ACES when it would fly on an Atlas or Delta, they buy a launch service and ULA determines the hardware configuration. Direct procuring ACES would muddy the waters.

Sorry for my newbie-ness, but what is ACES? I keep seeing people talking about it but I have no clue what it is. I've been able to figure out almost all of the other acronyms people use very frequently here, but not that one.

If you look carefully at that ULA proposal, they are also using ACES for the Orion Service Module.

That's correct. However, I suspect that the original Orion configuration would be retained in any hypothetical compromise to protect AJ-10 (which might also be useful for both landers and NEO orbiters). IMHO, the most likely ACES configurations to appear would be ACES-41 and -71 'vanilla', an ACES-71T tanker, the cryogenic depot and an ACES-71 variant to act as an EDS/propulsion module for deep space HSF exploration stacks. This latter version would carry its own solar arrays so it can have SEP sustainers as well as the RL-10 MPS.

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Not very active as would wish these times but this thread caught my attention and decided to do this quick post to write that:

a) for something like ACES + Jupiter basic configuration integration to be feasible, a number of additional assumptions would also need to be made (both technical and non-technical).

b) taking from 'granted' that any potential issues would somehow be taken by a) and focusing, for this post, *only* on potential performance and mission applications, have written in the past some personal musings related with the topic that originated the current thread.

Please note that such 'old' writings are, for the most part, personal brainstorms and might not necessarily reflect the official position of DIRECT Team.

Please also note that when I wrote such stuff, was using a conceptual Wide Body Centaur 3.5X (~73t prop) / ACES with ~5.4m diameter powered by a cluster of adapted RL-10-A4 or B2 engines and with mass assumptions that are slightly more conservative (due to a number of factors, including launcher / main payload integration assumptions, etc) than the assumptions made on some of the most recent public data from ULA papers.

Of course that, again, *only* from a pure performance brainstorm perspective, better mission capabilities could be expected if assuming upgraded hardware (for example, such as something else other than the STS 4 segment SRB... if keeping solid boosters, even the 5 seg. SRB could be used without stretching the baseline 8.4m diameter core) or if assuming different CEV assumptions or ACES properties or CEV-ACES integration aspects (on past simulations and in order to not impact too much on Orion development assumptions, I have preferred to assume - if required - offloaded lunar Orions integrated with custom ACES or with existing stages other than assuming the CM + ECLSS module more directly integrated with ACES acting as cryogenic SM, etc)... … all this in relation to what have written on the NSF posts that will link at the end...

Assuming cryogenic transfers / depots, etc would also provide extra functionality but, once more, all that would require a new layer of updated assumptions (both technical and non-technical) and related updated simulation work (which avoided for more near-future conceptual BEO brainstorms).

Disclaimers made, will share next an outdated image that roughly shows one of many possible ways of integrating something similar to an ACES with something like an in-line SDLV as well will post outdated but hopefully still interesting related links (given the updated context in relation to when those posts have been written):

The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage .

Not really viable. ACES has the avionics for the whole vehicle. Jupiter has is own set of avionics. NASA nor the USAF will buy an ACES when it would fly on an Atlas or Delta, they buy a launch service and ULA determines the hardware configuration. Direct procuring ACES would muddy the waters.

To reopen this debate:point 1. Jim is it possible to just procure ACES but have ULA attach sensors BUT NOT the primary flight avionics? That way, using adapters, once the stage has been sent to the cape it could have jupiter primary avionics attached to it? (i.e. basically ULA builds it but excludes the avionics package and lets nasa put their own on once the stage is at the cape). Point 2.: I have heard that as opposed to ACES, ULA is moving towards a "common centaur" and would most likely not use the full aces (41 or 71) unless they became a serious commercial lifter for ISS under a new commercial crew/cargo plan. Is this true? If it is, what about using the new centaur on a jupiter 130? (again ULA would build it minus the avionics and then NASA could attach their own when the time came. In theory this would still allow commonality and cost reduction (albeit not much) because ULA would not have the added cost of avionics in the build (that would be NASA's cost instead). Also why not just use uprated ACES avionics on jupiter? After all ares 1 x was flown with atlas 5 avionics ( ). It make not reduce costs (for ACES across the board) but it should not raise them too much, if at all right?

The idea of a third launcher, (j130 or 120 in this case) using ACES stages that NASA purchases would further reduce the cost of ACES because three different rockets would all be using the stage .

Not really viable. ACES has the avionics for the whole vehicle. Jupiter has is own set of avionics. NASA nor the USAF will buy an ACES when it would fly on an Atlas or Delta, they buy a launch service and ULA determines the hardware configuration. Direct procuring ACES would muddy the waters.

To reopen this debate:point 1. Jim is it possible to just procure ACES but have ULA attach sensors BUT NOT the primary flight avionics? That way, using adapters, once the stage has been sent to the cape it could have jupiter primary avionics attached to it? (i.e. basically ULA builds it but excludes the avionics package and lets nasa put their own on once the stage is at the cape).

Actually, that wouldn't work as the ACES would need its own avionics for when it is flying after staging. The only options are to have a 'dumb' Jupiter-1x0 with the ACES IU operating its systems, or some kind of bus between the two IUs that allows them to share navigation, flight dynamics and other data right up to the point of seperation.

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Jupiter avionics are conceived as being a movable unit, that is it has all the software to control a two-stage vehicle, adaptable to either a SSTO or a TSTO. The single unit would be located in the IU and mounted in the top of the J-130, with the upper stage code isolated, -or- located in the IU mounted in the top of the upper stage, with both stage control sets activated. Any ACES adaptation would need to follow this protocol.

Logged

Chuck - DIRECT co-founderI started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Jupiter avionics are conceived as being a movable unit, that is it has all the software to control a two-stage vehicle, adaptable to either a SSTO or a TSTO. The single unit would be located in the IU and mounted in the top of the J-130, with the upper stage code isolated, -or- located in the IU mounted in the top of the upper stage, with both stage control sets activated. Any ACES adaptation would need to follow this protocol.

There's the key question: "Any ACES adaptation would need to follow this protocol."1. Can it?2. How much is it gonna cost vs an "all NASA" upper stage?